[geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth......
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:29:29 -0800 (PST)
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Philip from here
............We must not get distracted from the important criteria, that with
the scale of observation being 430 light years as 13 kilometers, and the two
axels being within a point less than 0.5mm
the axis and stars are tied to each other...
Absolutely.. As if they were tied together,
they are for any axis in rotataion in fact on my diagram they were a single
point. Geometrically they can be treated as a single point at the 23Degrees
point between the axes. bisecting each other there. at the observers postion I
cannot understand why Regner wants to put a magnifying glass on this point when
we are working this scale, which is only 430 light years. .. 1 AU 2 AU and
R can all be considered as equivalent. at the observers postion point of
intersection no matter how small it may be, produces nightly star trails ..it
is thus not insignificant
IN HC
It does not matter where you are on the earths orbit around the sun, at any
time of the year, a star will always be in the same spot , shifting only due to
the earth rotation. Or any other the camera makes. Yes!.... but that is true
becaue the other motion the annual motion that HC insist upon is non exisitant.
if it did exist that stars would also appear to rotae around the ecliptic aix
in the same way the stars appear to rotate around the celestial axis for the
exact same reasons!
The point I'm asking to make is this.. This observation will be identical,
for either system..NO it can't be ..look at the diagrams......there are two
rotations in HC separated by 23.44 degrees and only one in GC Annual rotation
or daily, for a fixed camera. If you counter rotate the camera on the earth to
NEUTRALISE the earths rotation,(thats a sideral rotation) it will stop the
stars, You don't need to staop the stars because the two rotaions take place in
differnt directions due to the distance of the stars from the two different
axis 23.44 dgrees apart.... Then you will see the exact same trail as the daily
one over a year, because despite Regners assertions to the contrary, a
spot/camera if fixed on a rim, which it is on the planet, will make a full
turn over one year. Thats if HC is true. YES..YES!
The inclination angle makes no difference..Except that the size of star
trails is determined by the distance from the axis of rotation so a axis that
points in a differnt direction( 23.44 dgrees away) will have a entrily differnt
star trail for each star becuse each star will have a different distance away
from that axis becuse it is poining in a different direction..... I have
answered Regners objection earlier, to another but will do so more specifically
tomorrow. in simple turns the inclination of the axis is fixed . This has no
relationship to the surface of the earths rotation. It can be a solar day
increment or a combined increment of daily and orbital translation, without any
precessional influence at all.
Regner used a coffee cup.. Lets use a school globe which is enclined and on
bearings. Put it on a turntable and seize the bearings. With one turn of the
turntable the globe will make one spin rotation relative to space. there will
be no precessional force on the enclined axis.. Why should there be?
Philip.
Philip
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:02 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth......
Philip from here ............We must not get distracted from the important
criteria, that with the scale of observation being 430 light years as 13
kilometers, and the two axels being within a point less than 0.5mm
the axis and stars are tied to each other...
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Does anybody other than allen think I said anything to do with
stars..other than Polaris, "how in the world do you come up with stars that are
only .5mm distance across..? " read it again Allen..
We must not get distracted from the important criteria, that with the scale
of observation being 430 light years as 13 kilometers, and the two axels being
within a point less than 0.5mm such must be allowed to be considered as two
spins around the same centre with different axes. That 2AU and R must be
allowed as equivalent.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:32 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth......
Philip,
If you look ain any direction and then look in another direction that is
23.44 degrees offset from the first ..how in the world do you come up with
stars that are only .5mm distance across..? ... Philip think about what you
are saying....The sun moves back and forth across the sky 23
degrees......................is that only .5mm accros?...........distnace is
irrelevant any star at any distance will still have the same 23 of arc that the
sun or any other objects does in the sky...23 degrees is 23 degrees. In fact,
the further the distance away to the star the further the star is away from
that axis..?.
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DIV { MARGIN: 0px } Allen as usual you put in too many words for
anybody to glean what you are saying..
We must distinguish the difference between rotation of the inclination, (that
would be a precession which does not interest us here) and the actual physical
rotation of the body itself.
Take a basic example,
See my post using a wheel with a dot on its rim. If the dot is the planet
with a fixed inclined angle It is possible for it to turn one spin per orbit
whilst maintaining the correct enclined orientation. With these periods, the
sun would see the same face of the world, for the whole year, except that there
would be a seasonal change of view N -S .. That is the first spin, an annual
spin that Neville expects us to see.
On top of that the world has a second spin daily so that the world can get
barbecued evenly..
Its that simple.
We must not get distracted from the important criteria, that with the scale
of observation being 430 light years as 13 kilometers, and the two axels being
within a point less than 0.5mm such must be allowed to be considered as two
spins around the same centre with different axes. That 2AU and R must be
allowed as equivalent.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:15 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: translational motion of the earth......
Translational motion is also referred to as "sliding" or "rolling" motion
(to change position without rotation). see attached diagram .....In HC the
nightly axis of rotation or the celestial pole the axis translates around the
orbit of the earth. This is to say that the axis always faces the same
direction ..I¢ll even use Paul¢s diagram to show it ( i expounded upon it) ( i
will reinvent the wheel latter) The celestial pole does not rotate around the
ecliptic axis as Regner showed in his diagram..!? Although I agree (as per
HC/AC) the celestial axis "translates"/ ("slides" to keep looking in the same
direction of the sky) around the ecliptic axis annually. ( if faces that same
direction at the same angle, it does not rotate as Regner showed it to, and if
it did that would even further frustrate any and all attempts to explain it) On
24 hour intervals the camera is inline with the spokes on a bicycle running
from the night side of the earth to the sun. On 24 hour
intervals ( midnight) over the course of a year the camera is in it¢s radial
position, not its "translated position".( Every 23 h 56 min the camera would be
in its translated position.) A radial position over the course of the period of
any orbit cause a net effect of a rotation of the film and camera around the
ecliptic axis in the same way that the camera would nightly. See Paul¢s diagram
attached....... Notice, that on 24 hour intervals regaudell of the translated
conditon of the celestial axis the observer is in a radial position with the
spokes extending out from the sun to the observer, over the cours of a year the
fixed camera will have rotated around the ecliptic axis. The rotational
condition cannot be avoided and thus cannot be negated observably.
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:42:44 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
Regner, Paul and all,
You cannot have "translational motion" (or any motion for that matter) where
every 24 hours lined up as a spoke on a wheel (midnight) at the same point on
earth while in a orbit around the sun and not have a rotational condition for
the fixed observer/photo plate.....That is "TECHNICALLY" called a "physical
absurdity".!?. Nor can It even be modeled in reality period!......Even if his
diagram was true, which it was not even close...
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Regner T
From Regner Trampedach Tue Nov 13 14:47:09 2007
Thank you for your illustration EarthOrbit2.gif (9KB). It awaits Allen's
confirmation of course, but assuming this is forthcoming, it explains what he
was saying -- which was beyond my ability to comprehend. Well done!
Oops! While writing this, another saga arrived -- it appears Allen is
withholding his confirmation! I got the impression he didn't read all the stuff
in capitals but I may be wrong.
You state (in capitals on a line by itself) THERE IS NO ROTATION AROUND THE
ECLIPTIC AXIS. I take it this is a technically correct statement which does not
rule out translational motion about this axis? And of course revolution about
this axis would also be incorrect -- that motion is about the Sun.
Comments/corrections?
Paul D
---------------------------------
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.30/1127 - Release Date: 12/11/2007
9:19 PM
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1128 - Release Date: 13/11/2007
11:09 AM
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1128 - Release Date: 13/11/2007
11:09 AM
Other related posts:
